Pages

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

In re Grand Jury case brief

In re Grand Jury case brief summary
103 F.3d 1140 (3d Cir. 1997)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Appellant, the target of a grand jury
investigation, sought review of judgment of the District Court of the
Virgin Islands that denied his motion to quash a grand jury subpoena
issued to his father. Another appellant, also the target of a grand
jury investigation, sought review of a judgment of the United States
District Court for the District of the Delaware that denied his
motion to quash a subpoena issued to his daughter.

CASE FACTSAppellant, the target of a grand jury
investigation, filed a motion to quash a subpoena issued to his
daughter. In a separate case, another appellant, also the target of a
grand jury investigation, attempted to quash a subpoena issued to his
father. In both cases, the court declined to recognize a parent-child
privilege and denied the motions.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, the court affirmed.

The
overwhelming majority of all courts, federal or state, rejected such
a privilege.

Reason and experience dictated that federal courts
should refuse to recognize a privilege rejected by the vast majority
of jurisdictions.

In addition, such a privilege failed to meet two of
the conditions under the four-factor formula to establish a
privilege.

Confidentiality was not essential to a successful
parent-child relationship, and any injury to the parent-child
relationship resulting from non-recognition of such a privilege would
be relatively insignificant.

The legislature, not the judiciary, was
institutionally better equipped to perform the balancing of the
competing policy issues required in deciding whether the recognition
of a parent-child privilege was in the best interests of society.

CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgments that denied appellants' motions
to quash subpoenas issued to family members and declined to recognize
a parent-child privilege. The majority of courts rejected such a
privilege, and a parent-child privilege failed to meet two prongs of
the four-part test. Confidentiality was not essential to the
relationship and any injury to the relationship based on
non-recognition of the privilege would be insignificant.Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.

No comments:

Post a Comment

ShareThis

.

I have often tried to make the cases available as links in case you are a student without a textbook.

All the information on this site is constantly updated and edited. Furthermore, if you have any outlines you want to share, so that others, free of charge, may benefit, please send those to be posted here. Likewise, if you have case briefs you would like to share, please send them to [email protected].

Please keep in mind that this site makes no warranties as to the accuracy of the cases listed here or the current status of law. These cases are derived from class notes and laws change over time. If you have any questions about these materials, or any other legal questions, you should consult an attorney who is a member of the bar of the state you reside in.